“People are happy here” : perceptions of social housing in the Kolenkit neighbourhood

(1)

Master Thesis Bente Voskamp 2nd_{of July 2018}

Department of Sociology University of Amsterdam First reader: Olga Sezneva Second reader: Jan Rath Word count: 14777

“People are happy here”: Perceptions of social housing in the Kolenkit

neighbourhood

(2)

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Before you lies my thesis ‘Perceptions of social housing in the Kolenkit neighbourhood’ concluding my Master degree in Urban Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. I am very happy I decided on this topic and I am very grateful to have had this experience. I am thankful to all the participants in the Kolenkit neighbourhood for their time and interest in my research.

I would like to thank my supervisor Olga Sezneva for pushing me in the right

direction. I have a lot of ideas, but narrowing them down and putting them on paper can be quite the challenge. Olga you really are great when it comes to understanding me and helping me take the next step. Jan Rath, thank you for your straight-forward comments and taking the time to be my second supervisor.

Thanks to my colleagues at Aedes for the opportunity, encouragement and support during my internship. Bob and Hanneke, you guys are great. Thanks for all your time, keeping up with me and the gezelligheid.

Last but not least I would like to thank my great friends for their support. Dorien thanks for reading my theoretical framework, Chris thanks for checking my English and Dora for letting me borrow your camera.

I hope you enjoy reading my thesis, Bente Voskamp

(4)

4

1. INTRODUCTION

Social housing, defined as providing affordable housing aimed for citizens with lower income in the Netherlands (Rijksoverheid 2018), has been subjected to many changes in the last decades. The Kolenkit neighbourhood in the West of Amsterdam is a

neighbourhood in transition. The social housing stock in the neighbourhood has relatively decreased and more homeowners are moving into the neighbourhood. This thesis focuses on how residents of the Kolenkit perceive social housing and if this differs among homeowners and social tenants. The notion of territorial stigmatization (Wacquant, 2007) will be the main theoretical concept, focussing on the perceptions of social housing in a marginalised and transitioning neighbourhood.

Social housing

Social housing in the Netherlands is tangled in a web of do’s and dont’s. Housing associations are responsible for the allocation of social housing but the government sets the rules. Within this legal and political framework the associations can operate (Rijksoverheid, 2015). The main task is provide affordable homes for the people. This is done through reduced rent in comparison to market rent, with a maximum of 710 euros a month. Moreover municipalities give housing associations reduced land prices to develop affordable housing.

Social housing has a rich history in Dutch society. Historically the Dutch housing market has had a relatively high percentage of social housing. This could be for working class people with a modal to lower income, but not seldom for those how simply could not afford to buy a home. In the 20th_{century, the social rental market}

was accessible for many. Cities had waiting lists, but the social housing segment was definitely not endangered and was something steadily available. The 1990’s however were a tipping point (Kadi & Ronald, 2014). Social housing slowly started to reshape from its role in civil society towards more professionalised institutions (Beekers, 2012). Recent trends in social housing studies show that the average income of social tenants is decreasing, the social housing stock is decreasing and vulnerable groups are

overrepresented (Van Gent, Musterd, Veldhuizen, 2014; Van Ham, M., R. van Kempen & J. van Weesep, 2006).

The Kolenkit neighbourhood

The Kolenkit is a place of inbetweenness in the West of Amsterdam. The

neighbourhood is situated between the Ringroad on its eastern flank and the Metroline on the West, the ‘Haarlemmerweg’ (road) in the north and the ‘Erasmusgracht’ (canal) in the South. It is located at the New-West part of Amsterdam’s Ringroad, but yet part of the West borough. The neighbourhood was planned in the 1930’s and eventually

(5)

5

established in in the fifties (Van Eesteren Museum, 2018) as part of the garden cities. The garden cities models were spatial neighbourhoods for the increasing population of Amsterdam. This was aimed towards the large scale housing of families. In the

Kolenkit, these family dwellings were almost solely social housing. Today the Kolenkit is subjected to rapid changes. When walking around the neighbourhood in the spring of 2018, construction and renovations of homes are evident. The area remains to have a relatively high social housing stock compared to other neighbourhoods in Amsterdam (OIS Amsterdam, 2017) and moreover in the Netherlands (Ministerie van BZK, 2017). The neighbourhood is also in the middle of a gentrification process with renovations, newly constructed homes and so-called liberalised apartments. The latter are dwellings that formerly were social rental dwellings but have been privatized (Gemeente

Amsterdam, 2018).

Image

Almost a decade ago the Kolenkit neighbourhood was ‘the worst neighbourhood in the country’ (Het Parool, 2009). This was not just presented as such in the media, the neighbourhood was also ‘number one’ on the national programme list of the ‘Vogelaar neighbourhoods’. These neighbourhoods were named after the housing secretary who lead this project. According to secretary Vogelaar, a total of forty Dutch

neighbourhoods needed ‘special attention’ and moreover investments concerning prevention and decrease of social problems. Statistics on poverty, unemployment and criminal activity where the main indicators for the so called ‘problematic’

neighbourhoods. According to these policies; something needed to change long-term and this was to be established through participations projects (Vogelaar, 2008).

However in the Kolenkit neighbourhood a large renewal plan was already developed by the borough council. This was designed five years prior to the Vogelaar programme in the year 2003. The renewal design was planned to be developed from 2004 to 2015 (Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003). Nevertheless the financial crisis of 2008 slowed progress down. Development plans changed several times but are still based on the original 2003 renewal plan (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018).

As of today several housing associations, Rochedale; Stadgenoot and Eigen Haard, are renovating an (re)building social housing dwellings. Furthermore houses for

homeowners are being constructed. The total amount of all forms of housing has increased, yet the amount of homeowners almost doubled in the past five years in the Kolenkit neighbourhood. Evidently the share of social housing within the total housing stock in the neighbourhood rapidly decreased over the past decade (OIS Amsterdam, 2002;2007,2012,2017).

(6)

6

Research questions

The above stated changes in the Kolenkit neighbourhood have affected the residents. The neighbourhood used to be almost solely social housing, but this is no longer the case. More homeowners have moved into the neighbourhood, complete streets have been reconstructed, and the developments are still continuing.

How do the residents perceive social housing in a neighbourhood in transition? In this thesis perceptions of two groups of residents, homeowners and social housing tenants, will be researched through conducting semi-structured interviews.

The following research questions are asked:

What are the perspectives of social housing among residents of the Kolenkit neighbourhood?

1. How do residents of the Kolenkit neighbourhood describe social housing? 2. How do residents of the Kolenkit evaluate social housing in their neighbourhood?

a. How do residents of the Kolenkit experience the changing neighbourhood? b. How do experiences of change relate to social housing in the Kolenkit neighbourhood?

3. How do perspectives of social housing differ among social housing tenants and homeowners?

This thesis will firstly elaborate on the Kolenkit neighbourhood. This is followed by the third chapter: the theoretical framework. The theoretical framework consists of two sections. 3.1. is about social housing in the Netherlands: What are recent

developments in this field and how does this relate to the emerging middle class? Secondly in 3.2., stigmatisation will be introduced and further explained through the context of social housing. Subsequently this will be applied to the case of the Kolenkit neighbourhood. The methods will be explained in the 4th chapter followed by the results section. The result chapter is the core of this thesis and is structured

accordingly to the research questions. The 6th_{, and final, chapter will be the discussion} and entails concluding remarks, including limitations and recommendations for future research.

(7)

7

2. THE KOLENKIT NEIGHBOURHOOD

In this chapter the reader will learn about the Kolenkit neighbourhood. Firstly focussing on the establishment and history of the neighbourhood followed by the current situation in housing and demographics. Finally a ‘walk’ through the

neighbourhood will give the reader an impression of what the researcher perceives while in the field.

2.1. Between West and New-West

The origin of the Kolenkit neighbourhood

As introduced, the Kolenkit neighbourhood is situated in the West of Amsterdam, right over the Ringroad. The Kolenkit was part of AUP1_{which started in 1934. This was a large} scale expansion plan developed to provide housing in different forms for the ‘cornerstone of society’: families. The Kolenkit neighbourhood was developed right after the second world war in 1948, it was completed a decade later in 1958. This is in contrast with the rest of the West borough, which was developed pre-war. A significant part of the AUP, and quite well known, plan was that of the Garden Cities2_{. These garden neighbourhoods} were planned to include many parks, big avenues and spatial residences for families. There are diverging opinions on whether the Kolenkit is really part of the post-war Western Garden Cities or a delayed section of the previous Garden City development of Bos en Lommer (Van Eesteren Museum, 2018; Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003; Rijksdienst voor cultureel erfgoed, 2016). In the post-war Western Garden Cities streets were built in an East-West direction alongside a tramline (Rijksdienst voor

Cultureelerfgoed, 2016). The Kolenkit does fit the profile of a neighbourhood with housing for families. However residences were mostly apartments and not two-story houses.

The New-West borough was more mixed regarding housing when it was established. Different kind of apartments and houses, rentals and homeowner occupied have historically been present in the New-West districts. Homes were developed for the new middle class and homeowners, mostly families, whom were emerging in the New West area. This is in contrast to the Kolenkit neighbourhood. When firstly developed the Kolenkit was an area with smaller rental housing, aimed towards working class families. This in-between role of the Kolenkit is reflected in its location, development and type of housing. Firstly it is situated on the Westside of the Ringroad but part of the West borough. The neighbourhood was established post-war yet arguably not part of the

1_{Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan Amsterdam}

(8)

8

Western Garden Cities. Finally the Kolenkit was developed unmixed in type of housing, it was to be a solely social housing neighbourhood (Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003). The shift in population

Around the 1970’s the first generation of families outgrew the neighbourhood. Processes of suburbanisation led to many families settling outside of larger cities. This also was the case in Amsterdam. At the same time guest workers migrated to the Netherlands,

attained citizenship and applied for family reunification. Working class families with migrant background were in need of housing. The Kolenkit being a neighbourhood with many social housing dwellings was deemed a good place for these families. Residents with Moroccan and Turkish background started living in the neighbourhood from the early 80’s and onward. The first residents almost all left and the neighbourhood became very segregated. Poverty concentrated in the Kolenkit neighbourhood (Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003). Studies in the later 90’s show how the neighbourhood was perceived as problematic by residents. The neighbourhood was regarded unsafe and few facilities were present to prevent this (Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003).

Redevelopment

These perceptions are the starting notions of an extensive report and development to transform the neighbourhood by the borough council (Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003). This incentive entails that the neighbourhood should become a better place for all. Accordingly most efficiently and ideally done through redeveloping the whole

neighbourhood. This renewal plan of the Kolenkit neighbourhood dates from 2003, almost fifteen years ago. Green spaces, safety and a better connection to other neighbourhoods were important points of improvement. The amount of social housing would be decreased in favour of many more homeowner occupied dwellings. This was aimed to attract more middle class residents and moreover create a more mixed neighbourhood based on migrant and non-migrant background and higher and lower social economic status (Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003). As stated in the

introduction, a few months after the first homeowner occupied housing was established (Vrij Nederland, 2013), the neighbourhood became a Vogelaar neighbourhood. Extra budgets and policies were provided to increase liveability. However research of impact came out very critically afterwards and the project was believed to have failed (SCP, 2013).

(9)

9

Table 1: Housing stock Kolenkit district4

Source: OIS Amsterdam; stadsdelen in cijfers (2017, 2012, 2007 & 2002)

The 2003 renewal plan (Stadsdeelraad Bos en Lommer, 2003) stated goals regarding division of housing in the neighbourhood. The percentage of social housing was aimed to decrease from 95% in 2003 to 56% in 2015. This project did not go accordingly. As shown in table 1 in 2017 the percentage of social housing is 68%. The main reason for the change in development plans is the financial crisis that started in 2008 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). Although the 2003 version of the plans is still the core of the redevelopment, housing associations took renovation of some apartments as a new instrument to renew the neighbourhood. Less financial risk are attached to renovation in comparison to rebuilding dwellings. The majority of the redevelopment is finished as of spring 2018. In 2021, the project will be finalized (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). A striking similarity with changes and delays in the development in the Kolenkit is that of the establishment of the neighbourhood in 1950’s. The economic crisis of the 1930’s delayed and changed the original plans. Today we see a delay and change again in the redevelopment process mainly due to the financial crisis of 2008.

3_{The survey years used in table 1 and 2002 is the starting point because it prequels the renewal plans of 2003.} 2017 is the most recent year available. An interval of five years is shown.

4_{The city of Amsterdam has 4 different levels of urban division: city; borough (stadsdelen); districts (Wijken)}

and neighbourhoods (Buurten). The kolenkit district includes four neighbourhoods, of which two are Kolenkit-North and Kolenkit-South. The other two being: Laan van Spartaan and Robert Scottbuurt West. Since Amsterdam IOS, the statistics department of the municipality, only has data of districts regarding social housing stock the data in this proposal is based on district level. The qualitative research however will take place in two of the four district neighbourhoods: Kolenkit-North and Kolenkit-South as one ‘buurt’.

3 _Social housin g Market rental Home owner s Total housing stock Percentag e of social housing 2017 3244 588 907 4739 68% 2012 2769 166 462 3397 82% 2007 2395 74 49 2518 95% 2002 2513 73 48 2634 95%

(10)

10

Table 2: Demographics Kolenkit district

Source: OIS Amsterdam; stadsdelen in cijfers (2017, 2012, 2007 & 2002)

Furthermore regarding the demographics several trend are evident in Table 2. It shown how the amount of residents with a non-western background has decreased, the amount of families and the average length of residence has become significantly less. Combining the information of table 1, table 2 and the renewal plan of 2003, it can be concluded that the share of social tenants is decreasing and are mostly of non-western migrant

background6_{. Moreover the amount of homeowners is increasing having either} non-migrant or western non-migrant background.

2.2. A walk through the neighbourhood

Above, the researcher described a brief history of the Kolenkit and the current situation in housing stock and demographics. To see what the neighbourhood looks like as of spring 2018, the reader will be taken on a walk through the neighbourhood. This will be done accordingly to the three sections of the neighbourhood: the North, Mid and South field. The north field is situated between the Haarlemmerweg and Wiltzanghlaan, the mid field between Wiltzanghlaan and the Bos en Lommerweg and finally the south field

between the Bos en Lommerweg and Erasmusgracht.

5_{The survey years used in table 1 and 2002 is the starting point because it prequels the renewal plans of 2003.} 2017 is the most recent year available. An interval of five years is shown.

6_{According to CBS (2018) someone with a Non-western background is a person with a migration background} from countries in Africa, Latin- America, Asia (excluding Indonesia and Japan) and Turkey.

5 _{Non-western migrant} background Families with minor children Average length of residence 2017 60.9% 28.0% 5.3 years 2012 69.1 % 31.2% 6.3 years 2007 79.9% 39.3% 7.5 years 2002 80.5% 48.7% 7.2 years

(11)

11

North field

The North field is the uniformly social housing area. The buildings constructed in the 50’s are still present in its original form. Wide pavements, small streets and many tall trees reflect the garden city ideal. Football fields separate the area from the Haarlemmerweg, the Sloterdijk

business district and train station. In the east of the northern field the only

commercial space in of this field is present: The WOW hostel. The bright colours on the building are quite striking in the

neighbourhood. Especially in this part of the Kolenkit where the complexes are predominantly concrete and grey. Small balconies are crowed with laundry. Children are playing on the pavements and on the playground. A few lost tourist are

wandering around the neighbourhood. The Wiltzanghlaan between the north and mid fields is a relatively quiet road. Crossing the Wiltzanglaan to the middle field gives the researcher a very different impression.

Image 1: Football field with on the background Sloterdijk business district, Haarlemmerweg

Image 2: WOW hostel, Wiltzanghlaan

Image 3: Wide pavements, small streets and concrete buildings, De Roos van Dakemaweg

(12)

12

Mid field

Most of the midfield is a construction site. There is a lot nuisance from the piling. The biggest construction site is situated mid-east in between Wiltzanghlaan and the Bos en Lommerweg. A big complex will be developed here with mixed housing, as seen in Image 4. This is developed by Housing Association Eigen Haard. 56 social housing dwellings, 69 free market rentals7 and 137 apartments for homeowners will be established. In the far East of the middle field a new project stands out. The so-called rhapsody complex will contain free market rental dwellings only. These glass curved apartments are very different buildings compared to the brick or

concrete buildings, new and old, in the rest of the neighbourhood. The Akbarstraat has renovated apartment blocks. These blocks used to be all social housing dwellings, now it is a mixed building. The majority of the apartments in the first Akbarstraat block have been liberalised and are now homeowner occupied. Further up North in the Akbarstraat the original housing is still present. Within some blocks, former social tenants have had the opportunity to buy their home. The majority in the mid field however is still social housing (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). On the West side of the Bos en Lommerweg the tallest building of the neighbourhood ‘the new kit’ is situated, no social housing is present in this eye catching complex.

7_{residences with rent above the 710 euro rent limit}

Image 4: Billboards on the construction site of the mixed complex, Bos en Lommerweg

Image 5: The Rhapsody complex under

construction with in the background the ‘kolenkit’ church belltower, Jan van Schaffelaarplantsoen

Image 6: Building site with on the background the renovated Akbartstraat complex, Bos en

(13)

13

South field

Crossing the main street of the Kolenkit, the Bos en Lommerweg, brings us to some commercial spaces. Six stores are situated here: a traveling agency, bridal store, convenience store, photo store, carpet store and furniture store. The south field is the most new and finished. The

Erasmusgracht is a peaceful canal with little traffic and a place of leisure. The

Leeuwerdalersweg is a very wide street with trees, separate cycle lanes and a playground. The ideal of wider streets, as presented in the 2003 renewal plan, has been evidently implemented on this location. The Scala complex is very

prominently situated, all the way from the Bos en Lommerweg down to the

Erasmusgracht. West of the building the railway is situated. Many trains and metros pass by, however the length and height of the building hides this sight. One barely notices the presence of the traffic artery. The eastern part of the south field is mostly newly constructed social housing and properties for homeowners. Housing association Rochedale and Stadgenoot are working together on renovations and redevelopment of the south field. A few original blocks remain but will be renovated or rebuild in the coming year (Stadgenoot, 2018). On the Bos en Lommerweg the church which the neighbourhood is named after, arises and is still a prominent

landmark in West Amsterdam.

Image 7: The bridal store and convenience ‘shopping centre’ store, Bos en Lommerweg

Image 8: Green spaces, boats and new apartments with a wide view, Erasmusgracht

Image 9: The Scala complex with on the background the ‘new Kit’ high-rise apartments, Leeuwerdalersweg

(14)

14

2.3. Concluding notions on the Kolenkit neighbourhood

Most evidently visible is the difference between the South and the Northern part. The northern part remains mostly untouched and is still faithful to the original garden city plan. However the south field project is almost complete. Homeowner occupied and social housing dwelling complexes are both present in this area. A few original blocks remain, but are being renovated or already renovated. The middle field is still very much

developing. The inner areas are open construction sites and in the outer east zone the Rhapsody project is being constructed. Renovated blocks such as in the Akbarstraat have mixed housing.

The Kolenkit is a vibrant neighbourhood where a lot of changes are going on and have been going on for over a decade. This becomes clear in the street view as many buildings are being renovated and reconstructed. The majority of dwellings was and still is social housing, but a rapid decrease is visible. Alongside these development are accompanying changes in demographics. In the next chapter, processes and changes in social housing will be further explained, followed by second section on stigmatisation of social housing in the Kolenkit neighbourhood.

(15)

15

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1. Changes in social housing

The role of social housing in the Netherlands

In Dutch policy and public discourses ‘social housing’ is the concept used to describe a clear, limited and regulated form of affordable housing. In this thesis social housing will be defined according to the following definition of the government of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands social housing is owned by housing associations (Government of the Netherlands, 2018). Semi-public organisations which are positioned in a triangle between the market, government and society. The government sets the rules. The associations are obligated by law to assign and allocate for ‘the target group’. The principal target group are families with an income below €36.798 and additionally the secondary target group consist of lower middle income, so groups below €41.056. Alongside ‘urgent’ cases, these groups are the people who have access to social housing. Social housing in the Netherlands contains 75% of the overall rental stock and is ‘defined as homes for which the initial monthly rent is under the €710.68 (in 2016)’, (Rijksoverheid, 2018). Social housing entails a total of 2.3 million dwellings in the Netherlands. Owner-occupied entails 4.3 million homes and market rental 1 million dwellings. This makes the total share of social housing 30% of the national housing stock (Ministerie van BZK, 2017). Historically the housing act of 1901 is marked as the institutional starting point for social housing in the Netherlands. This revolutionary law made living conditions better and many new working class areas emerged. This was especially the case in cities with a large growth in population. Through this housing act families no longer had to spend the majority of their income to housing. This resulted in more room for expenditures such as food and clothing. Municipalities were the main provider for new social housing. However this was not solely done by the municipality. Several housing associations and foundations also established housing in the first half of the 20th

century. These organisations were subsidised by the state of the Netherlands (Elsinga, Hoekstra, Van ’t Hof, Van der Leij & Van Rijn, 2014). The city of Amsterdam

experienced large scale urbanisation and a therefore a big responsibility in providing housing. Amsterdam was leading in the nation in developing affordable housing. However the economic difficulties in the 30’s and the second world war, 1940-1945, led to delays in construction.

After the World War II the Netherlands was experiencing an incredible rise in demand for housing. This overwhelming task led the government to give housing associations more responsibilities. Between 1947 and 1985 the share of social housing in the

(16)

16

overall housing stock soared from 11% to 42% (Elsinga et al, 2014). In 1958 the first committee for ‘independency’ of housing associations was established, and resulted in a list of recommendations in 1964. The process of moving towards a model of

financially independent organisations was starting. The associations were no longer subsidised directly by the government, but now got reduced prices for building

ground. Strikingly the committee also recommended to look beyond the working class. In practice social housing was aimed towards lower income households. More financial independency was assumed to give housing associations more agency towards

building a bigger sector and so providing for more citizens.

In 1991 this changed, for the first time in 90 years of housing policy the target group of social housing was defined by law. To maintain and increase financial independency, housing associations needed to prioritize lower income groups. The aim of this was for tenants with higher incomes to ‘outgrow’ their social dwellings and eventually become a homeowner. Meanwhile housing associations became independent social enterprises with a societal responsibility. The following section will explain how social housing changed from the 90’s until the present on and how this can be placed in the context of the dualisation of the housing market (Kemeny, 1995). Firstly in a larger context and subsequently applied to the Kolenkit neighbourhood.

Towards a dualist housing system

The early 90’s marked a tipping point in housing systems. Kemeny’s (1995) typology of housing markets focuses on the process of dualisation. This means the unitary housing market, typically state led and maintained, is eroding and moving towards more of a dualist system. The Netherlands was an example of a unitary housing market and had a large social housing sector which served as the fundament of the housing system. According to Duijne and Ronald (2015) this began to ‘unravel’ in the early 1990’s. In a dualist system a much smaller social housing sector is created and maintained by the state. Dualist markets use social housing as a safety net rather than a sufficient and accessible part of housing systems (Fitzpatrick & Pawson, 2014 as cited in Duijne & Ronald, 2015). Van Gent and Boterman (2018) explain how the unravelling of the unitary market started after a political struggle between moderate social interest reformers and radical liberal reformers in the Netherlands. These

political and economic interest influenced the policies in the coming years as described in the previous section. The primary change that occurred was the selling of social housing stock by housing associations. After 2002 this took up a faster pace (Hochstenbach, 2017). Nowadays housing associations have the ‘right to sell’ (Aalbers, 2004), but are not obliged to. Financially selling of stock can be very beneficial to housing associations in strained housing markets. The real estate has

(17)

17

soared in value. However current political discourse pressures housing associations even further into privatization of social housing dwellings. In Amsterdam for example, eight organisations own 45% of the total housing stock. Economically liberal political parties would like to see the stock decreased rather sooner than later (Duijne & Ronald, 2015).

Changing processes of social housing are not limited to policies in Amsterdam or even the Netherlands. Elsinga, Haffner and Van der Heijden (2008) argue how the unitary rental market is threatened by stealth policy changes. The EU income-limit is the central focus of their study. As explained, housing associations did have policies prioritizing lower incomes and urgent cases since 1991. However a set income limit remained absent until 2009. According to the European Committee, Dutch housing associations were in unfair competition with commercial landlords. This was because these parties did not receive the same favourable financial conditions for building ground by the government. Therefore a target group needed to be defined for social housing associations and subsequently an income limit needed to be implemented. This income limit drastically changed the accessibility of social housing. All household with an income above €41.056 euro a year could no longer apply for a social housing dwelling.

After this new regulation a number of incidents lead to a Parliamentary Inquiry of the Housing Associations (Boelhouwer & Priemus, 2014). The rather ‘invisible’ housing associations, became ‘infamous’ organisations. Media platforms highlighted the associations in which mostly its directors executed financial mismanagement or were self-enriching. These problems occurred only at a few housing associations, but the damage was done and the Parliamentary Inquiry was held. Mostly based on this Inquiry, the new Housing Act was introduced in 2015, forcing housing associations to not only focus on lower-income households but also provide ‘urgency-status’ for vulnerable groups. This is decided on a municipal level in the so called ‘performance agreements’, between municipality, housing associations and tenants interest groups. One of the agreements is about the share of assigned housing to vulnerable groups. In the municipality of Amsterdam 40% of available social housing should be ascribed to ‘vulnerable’8_{groups. The ‘new’ social housing tenant is not only selected by income} but 40% by ‘vulnerability’ as well.

8_{According to the definition of municipality of Amsterdam the following groups are labelled as ‘vulnerable’:} Refugees holding a residence permit, outflow of people in care facilities (extramuralisation), homeless and families.

(18)

18

The explained developments have implications for residents of the Kolenkit. The shift to the dualist market is evidently occurring in the Kolenkit, more homeowners are moving into the neighbourhood. Although Brussels seems to be far away from the Kolenkit neighbourhood, there are many consequences for its residents regarding the income limit. In a neighbourhoods such as the Kolenkit where renovations and

development led to new social housing dwellings, these new rules determine the accessibility of new social housing tenants. Residents who have been living the Kolenkit for years, but overtime had an increase of income above the EU-limit cannot re-apply for a new dwelling in the neighbourhood. Furthermore the social housing that becomes available will be assigned to vulnerable groups in 40% of the cases.

Embracing the middle class

Although housing policies are important factors regarding perceptions of social housing, the economic changes and socio-cultural factors must also be explained. In particular concerning the influx of middle class residents in disadvantaged

neighbourhoods. The municipality of Amsterdam successfully managed the housing shortages in the early eighties. Families and middle class residents were mostly not living in Amsterdam. Large quantities of commuters lived in suburbia or in smaller cities in the region. Furthermore, growth in higher education, deindustrialization and many other dynamics, eventually led to a change of demographics in the city of Amsterdam (Van Gent and Boterman, 2018 p. 9). Amsterdam became a (inter-)national magnet for youth and expats whilst suburbanisation of families declined. These demographic and cultural changes led to a very different demand in housing. Disadvantaged neighbourhoods became sites of gentrification in which the middle class ‘rediscovered the city’ (Atkinson 2008; Van Pinkster, 2012). Van Gent and Boterman (2018) argue how state policies ‘safeguard’ urban (re)-development. The mobility of capital leads city and national governments into constant urban renewal. The state does not necessarily form class relations but does concentrate these

dynamics in the case of housing systems (Van Gent & Boterman, 2018). Gentrification is an example of urban redevelopment through governmental influence and policy. This is often regarded as a social mix strategy. Not all scholars are necessary critiquing mixing policies. Ostendorf, Musterd and de Vos (2001) argue how concentration of poverty can be decreased through this measure. However they continue to argue that if designed to increase liveability, many residents can get displaced from their neighbourhood. Uitermark (2005) states how local

neighbourhoods had to become more ‘manageable’ through implementation of

(19)

19

how this is part of ‘revanchist city’, a concept developed by Neil Smith (1996). Inner city neighbourhoods are reclaimed by middle class.

Although the Kolenkit was not one the first gentrified neighbourhoods, housing aimed for middle class was further introduced and developed in the past decade as explained in chapter 2. The renewal plan of 2003 was state led and in cooperation with housing associations and had big consequences for the demographics of the neighbourhood. This particular plan formulated firm words emphasizing that more homeowners would unquestionably make the neighbourhood a better place. Furthermore the later

Vogelaar neighbourhood project only fuelled this discourse further. Even though plans were delayed, the development continued as soon as the economy got back on its feet. Evidently affecting social housing in the neighbourhood by privatization and demolishing social housing dwellings.

The social housing sector in the Netherlands is changing. In this first section of the theoretical framework the researcher elaborated on social housing policies and how this affects the Kolenkit neighbourhood. Furthermore the embracement of the middle class through state led gentrification is explained and moreover how this is manifested in the case of the Kolenkit. In the second section of the theoretical framework the reader will learn about stigmatisation of social housing and how this relates to the Kolenkit neighbourhood. Firstly theory of stigma will be introduced followed by the application to the context of social housing in the case of the Kolenkit neighbourhood.

3.2. Stigmatisation of social housing Stigma

In the following section, stigmatisation in places of marginality will be explained. Subsequently, this will be applied to social housing. Theory of stigma was developed by Ervin Goffman in his book Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity (1963). According to Goffman, the stigmatised individual is an undesirable stereotype that is socially rejected rather than accepted by the ‘normal’. The so-called normal are individuals who do not bear the stigma. People lean on certain assumptions and therefore form a ‘tainted persona’ rather than a ‘whole persona’. The ‘attribute’ attached to the individual will be the stigma. This is based on a virtual social identity rather than the actual social identity. Goffman (1963) distinguished three individual relations to stigma. The first being those who bear the stigma. Followed by the second group of normal who are the furthest away from the stigma. With the third and last kind to be the ‘wise’, the individual who does not possess the stigma. Goffman

(20)

20

furthermore distinguishes and explains three types of disqualifications or marks in

stigma: race, nation and religion. Territorial stigmatisation

Wacquant (2007) builds on Goffman’s theory of stigma (1963) by adding ‘place’ as the fourth disqualification of the individual. Emerging marginality in the global north is the reasoning behind Loic Wacquant’s (2007) work on territorial stigmatization. Wacquant describes three places of ‘advanced marginality’ in his study. Applying this theory to the Dutch case is sometimes questioned. Some scholars disagree with Wacquant’s lack of nuance when it comes to comparing places of advanced marginality. Segregation and concentration of poverty is not as evident in the Netherlands. The banlieues in France, ghettos in the United States and the Dutch neighbourhoods are indeed very different places. However even if Dutch neighbourhood are considered to be less marginalised, these are still places were territorial stigmatization can occur. There are scholars who do apply territorial stigmatization in their work such as Fenne Pinkster. Later in this section her work will be further elaborated. Furthermore the Western Garden cities, which the Kolenkit is arguably part of9_{, are even mentioned by}

Wacquant (2007) as places of advanced marginality. The Kolenkit was dubbed as the ‘worst neighbourhood in the country’, these kind of public discourses are what

Wacquant addresses as stigmatising. Statics determining a place to be dangerous or poor is less relevant. It is about the beliefs of stereotypes and prejudices that can stigmatise a place and it’s residents. Furthermore displacement through public policies must be taken into account. Public labelling of places as ‘lawless zone’ or ‘outlaw estate’ paves the way for renewal projects than can lead to displacement of residents (Wacquant, 2007).

Advanced marginality occurs in neighbourhoods with concentration of social housing. Sean Purdy (2003) wrote a paper on Regent Park in Canada’s largest city per capita: Toronto. In 1951 this project the Regent Park public housing project was established. It started off as a promising post-war public housing project. However in a couple decades it rapidly changed from a place for deserving workers and veterans into the slums of the city. In North-America the amount of public housing is incomparably low to the Netherlands and is close to being diminished. Social housing is not considered to be something that should be provided by the state. The public housing projects are mostly associated with the ‘underclass’. The intergenerational reproduction of poverty is used as an argument against developing public housing. Political discourse frame these neighbourhoods as breeding grounds for poverty. In Regent Park it became

(21)

21

evident how lack of a solid social housing system pushed the place into

marginalisation. Only the poorest of the poor were housed al ltogether. The issue is not in the presence of social housing itself, but the absence of social housing

elsewhere. In other words decreasing the social housing stock in a neighbourhood is not the solution, especially if the overall social housing stock is decreasing. A

diminished or small social housing segment will only concentrate marginalised groups. According to Wacquant (2007) this type of advanced marginality paves the way towards stigma.

Stigmatisation of social housing has been researched in the UK case. The

administration of Prime minister Margaret Thatcher made it possible for social tenants to buy their home. This so-called right-to-buy act has led to a tremendous decrease of the social housing stock. Power and Provan (2015) state in their paper on ‘Growing stigmatisation of social housing’ how the rolling back of the state led to large residualisation of social housing. The residualistion process entails the decrease of social housing stock and average income of social housing tenants. This has led to negative stereotypes towards social housing and furthermore increased stigma. Power and Provan (2015) and Purdy (2003) inform this research on stigmatisation of social housing. Although these are indeed a different countries and very different housing market, the latter study suggest there is a strong relation between residualisation of social housing and stigma.

Perceptions of social housing in the Netherlands

The concept of stigma has been productively used in the research done on topics of urban marginality in the Netherlands. As explained in section 3.1. new regulations of social housing have led to eroded accessibility to the social housing segment. Van Gent, Musterd, Veldhuizen (2014) focus on residualisation of the social housing sector in the Netherlands. According to Van Gent et al. (2014) this is the effect of decreasing average incomes of the social housing stock and the increase of vulnerable groups. Large scale extramuralisation, the outflow of people out of caring facilities, in recent years has led to a new influx of several groups that were previously housed in care facilities. In the Kolenkit neighbourhood this affects the accessibility and housing of new tenants. More vulnerable groups will be housed in social housing, whereas households who earn over the limit do no longer have access.

Building on gentrification research and the ‘rediscovery’ of middle class

neighbourhoods, Fenne Pinkster (2014) researches everyday practices of middle class households living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Lack of attachment, especially in comparison with social tenants, is one of the main findings of the research. Spoiled

(22)

22

identity (Goffman, 1963) of middle class residents in the Kolenkit can be a possible outcome of this research. Although this thesis does not focus on residents images of middle class, it does focus on the perceptions that middle class residents have of social housing. Less affiliation or a ‘distance’ from the neighbourhood might also result in a limited perception of social housing tenants.

Another study by Pinkster (2016) focusses on experiences of belonging in a

neighbourhood undergoing change. The neighbourhood mostly houses social tenants, but there is a slow influx of homeowners and social tenants with an urgency status. These ‘other’ social housing tenants ‘ruin’ the ‘reputation’ of the neighbourhood according to residents. This touches upon how residents evaluate (changing) social housing. Social housing tenants, who have been living in Kolenkit for a longer time, may state they feel less attached to the neighbourhood because of changes.

Furthermore this can influence their perception on the (ideal) ratio of social housing/middle class housing and their perception of ‘new’/’other’ social housing tenants. This indicates that there can be differentiating perceptions within the group of social housing tenants.

The Kolenkit is a neighbourhood with a large Muslim community in which the majority is a social housing tenant (Amsterdam, 2017). Uitermark, Duyvendak and Rath (2014) explain how stigmatization of ethnic minorities is institutionalized in the city of

Amsterdam. Although mainly focused on how this is integrated in policy, the stigma and ‘tainted persona’ of Muslims is relevant for this research. According to Uitermark et al. (2014) many negative stereotypes are ascribed to people with a ‘Muslim’

background. Less civilized manners, less integrated in ‘Dutch’ culture. The majority of Muslims in Amsterdam has a Turkish or Moroccan background (Amsterdam, 2017). Therefore concepts, traits and prejudice of culture, religion and ethnicity are often jumbled. Images and/or stereotypes of social housing tenants can be put in the framework of muslim and moreover that of migrant background. The Kolenkit has many residents with Turkish and Moroccan migrant background. One therefore expect to find stereotypes regarding migrant background among residents in the Kolenkit neighbourhood.

Visser, Bolt & van Kempen (2014) conducted a qualitative study among youths in deprived neighbourhood. The youths in this study, point out many positive aspects of the neighbourhood, whereas from an outsider perspective the neighbourhood is

labelled as problematic. Visser et al. (2014) state how perceptions of a neighbourhood can very much differ among residents. Different groups can apply different traits to a place. The discrepancy between social identities can greatly differ among the

(23)

23

make the social housing tenant the stigmatized and the homeowner the stigmatiser. Furthermore homeowners will have more ‘tainted’ images towards social housing. 3.3. Expected outcomes

Based on the literature review, stigmatisation of social housing in the Kolenkit is expected. The movement towards a dualist system with all underlying policy processes marginalises the social housing sector. According to the literature, there is a strong relation between marginalisation and stigmatisation. Being a social housing tenant has strict limits nowadays, because the accessibility has drastically changed. An increasing number of vulnerable groups and lower incomes live in social housing dwellings. Also the shift towards homeownership is encouraged in political discourse.

In the case of the Kolenkit the hypothesis is proposed that social housing tenants are perceived as a group with lower income and associated with vulnerability. To test the hypotheses, the notion of territorial stigmatization is used. Through the qualitative study, the perceived changes of the residents will be researched and the ways in which these perceptions reflect the changing status of social housing. Furthermore images, representations, and experiences of social housing at the moment of

transformation in the Kolenkit neighbourhood will be researched. Finally the expected outcome on homeowners and social tenants is a profound difference in perceptions of social housing. In the next chapter the methods of this qualitative study are explained.

(24)

24

4. METHODS

Perceptions of social housing were researched by conducting semi-structured interviews among adult residents of the Kolenkit neighbourhood. The perception do not solely focus on images of social housing tenants. As stated by Wacquant (2017) place is also part of shaping images and according to the expected outcomes part of the larger conception of stigma. As shown in the conceptual model the main concept and topic is social housing from which the Kolenkit is the case study. Two groups will be distinguished: the perspectives of homeowners and the perspectives of social housing tenants on social housing. These perceptions will be described answering the three main research questions. Focussing on images, changes and differing

perspective between social tenants and homeowners. Figure 1: Conceptual model

(25)

25

4.1. Fieldwork and participants

In the first weeks of this research, a community centre was approached and gave contact details of a board member of the homeowner committee. This stakeholder provided a total of twenty email-addresses of homeowners. Through VoorUit project, an initiative run by students organizing activities in the neighbourhood, access to social housing tenants was provided. Furthermore, three respondents were

approached during a community dinner and one was approached on the street. This kind of non-probability sampling is a snowballing method. Extra attention to diversity of the participants was paid to guard representability of the sample. In addition to distinguishing ten homeowners and ten social housing tenants the total sample of twenty is selected based on gender and migrant background. Gender (male/female); 10 male;10 female. Background (migrant/non-migrant); 10 migrant; 10-non migrant. Figure 2 shows how the first participant, the stakeholder, gives several referrals. These referrals are selected based on the three stated criteria: homeowners/social housing tenants; male/female; migrant/non-migrant.

Figure 2: Exponential non-discriminative snowball sampling

Source: Dudvoskiy, J (2011)

Twenty interviews were recorded using a recording device and were transcribed right after conducting the interview. During the interviews in 4 out of 20 interviews other residents joined (part) of the conversation. The main participant was always present and engaged during the interview. Additionally during interviews field notes were taken to ‘complement’ the research (Sutton & Austin, 2015). It provided context in which the interviews were conducted and assisted the researcher during analysis with interpretation of data. It has no further relevance for the results and served as part of the data organisation. Based the research questions and the expected outcomes in the

(26)

26

literature, the following list of key concerns was drafted from which the topic list was extracted. Expected is that these topics are to be discussed in the interviews.

Key concerns

What are the perceptions of social housing among residents of the Kolenkit neighbourhood?

- (1) How do residents of the Kolenkit describe social housing?

- Income

- Background

- Quality of housing - Size of housing

- (2) How do residents of the kolenkit evaluate social housing in their neighbourhood?

- Experience change

- Neighbourhood

- Future residency

- (Ideal) share of social housing in the neighbourhood

- (3) How do images of social housing differ among social housing tenants and homeowners?

Difference/no difference in images of traits, dwellings and evaluation of social housing between homeowners and social housing tenants.

4.2. Data processing and organisation

All interviews were transcribed by the same researcher. Transcribing is part of the analysis process. Here is where the preliminary findings come to light and patterns are becoming visible (Bird, 2005). Since respondents can get very detailed in their

description and images of social housing and the Kolenkit many adjectives are used. These tend to be a bit harder to directly and or literally translate. Example: ‘’Dit is een spannende buurt, er gebeurt heel veel!’’’ Translated to: ‘’’This is an

exciting/thrilling/fun neighbourhood’’. Careful and thoughtful translation was

(27)

27

not translated, but quotations in the result section of the thesis will are translated

from Dutch to English.

4.3. Coding

Interview transcripts are analysed through open coding using Atlas.ti as a tool. The main goal is to find patterns in the data and to categorize findings. When looking for images of social housing during analysis codes such as ‘people on benefits’ or

‘poverty’, can be ascribed to phrases retrieved from the transcripts. The next stage will be to categorize these findings from codes to categories. For example include ‘people on benefits’ and ‘poverty’ into the category ‘Lower income’. Furthermore the category can become part of family code within a category. After the first cycle of coding a second cycle of coding is to be conducted. Constant critical reflection of coding is needed in order to have a sufficient result. For example is: ‘people on benefits’ and ‘poverty’ part of ‘lower income’ or of ‘vulnerable groups’ or maybe even of ‘social problems’? And how are all these codes connected? These kind of questions are part of the coding process. When patterns and categories were finally established this became part of the result section of the research. Along with the presented theory the findings will provide an answer to the research questions.

4.4. Reflection on collected material

Homeowners were all approached through snowballing. Five of the respondents are active members of Kolenkit community organisations and/or the homeowner

organisations. Five are non-active members; this is not a representative sample. But what is great about these respondents is that they know a lot about the

neighbourhood. They can give detailed description, image and opinion. Initially social housing tenants respondents were to be approached through

snowballing as well. But three were approached in the community centre directly and one on the streets. Furthermore some interviews fell very short. This was, to the knowledge of the researcher, not due to the situation but to the topic and in two occasions due to language. One could have chosen to only interview people who can express themselves fluently, however this would have left out the voice of a big part of the Kolenkit neighbourhood residents. In the following section the results will be presented.

(28)

28

5. RESULTS

In this chapter the results will be explained and subsequently related to the previous described theoretical notions. This will be structured along three sub research questions. The concluding section of this chapter will summarize the findings and moreover provide a result to the main research question:

What are the perspectives of social housing in the Kolenkit neighbourhood?

5.1. How do residents of the Kolenkit neighbourhood describe social housing?

Lower social economic status

During interviews many different images came forward regarding social housing tenants. Most evidently, and reflected on by the vast majority of the participants, is that of lower social economic status. This is defined by indicators of education, income and occupation (SCP, 2018). Several homeowners reflected on images within the broader definition of social economic status. But the majority of the respondents describe traits of lower income as an image of social tenants. In the following quotes different descriptions of lower income images are explained.

Irma (homeowner):

“The people who do not buy mostly have a lower educational background or have jobs I do not find that interesting."

Irma is a homeowner who does not only reflect on lower income, but on educational status as well. Although she does reflect on her own generalisation and prejudices in her interview, there is a clear generic image of social tenants present. Social tenants mostly have other interest due to their educational background. And, for Irma, are therefore less eligible to interact with.

Emre (social tenant): I: “Who live in social housing?

P: Al kinds of people [pause]. Especially people on benefits. I: Yes?

P: Yeah that’s why you live in social housing

I: But you said people with steady incomes can only remain in the neighbourhood? P: Yeah but they do have income you know, income from retirement funds or illness benefits.

(29)

29

I: So some form of income, but mostly they are not working?

P: Yeah yeah those really are people mostly living of benefits.”

Emre firstly states people with steady incomes live in social housing. When asking again, he defines steady income as something of a steady benefit. Striking is that income is not directly associated with a job. Income could also be from sickness benefits or retirement funds.

Enisa (social tenant):

P: ‘Yeah well they all, they all do not have, their financial status isn’t great, and yeah I see a lot of poverty.

[…]

I: Well but where do you see the poverty, do you sometimes visit people? P: Uhu

I: Or is it from the outside?

P: Uuuhm well I mostly see it if I look at their children, because I come inside the dwellings. And it looks quite good, nice and tidy.

I: yeah

P: and just nicely decorated. And the adults will never admit that they don’t have money or anything, but if you are with their children and they tell you they want to do sports and that is not

possible because of a reason. Or uuuh… do you know what I mean? I: Yeah it is, it’s not like there is no food but

P: There are no extras yeah.. And that is what people struggle with, but they will not tell you that.’’ Enisa is a student social worker who lives in a social housing dwelling as well. She points out that poverty is not as visible, but that there are indeed many families in social housing struggling to make ends meet. There is food on the table, the house is tidy. However there are no extras. For example the children cannot obtain a membership for sports activities. By speaking and working with the children she learns about that. She points out that adults would not easily tell you about their financial situation.

She even suggests that the researcher is not someone they probably will tell their financial struggle to. Based on her experience she only gets indications of poverty through the children. Little luxury is a form of hidden poverty among social tenants according to Enisa.

(30)

30

Behaviour

Many traits concerning behaviour of social tenants came op during interviews. In terms of behaviour social tenants are described in comparison to homeowners. Homeowners are described as better behaved and more civilized. Ways of keeping the neighbourhood and buildings tidy are coming up on several occasions. Richard uses a very visual

example to describe a trait of social housing. By comparing the lifts in different complexes he explains how social tenants are more neglecting towards their building. Furthermore rubbish and vandalism is mentioned and attributed to social tenants. For Richard this serves as an argument to not mix within buildings, which will be further elaborated in the second section of this chapter.

Richard (homeowner):

P: “If we compare for example: and that’s very simple. Our lift of the homeowners dwellings and the lift nextdoor of the social tenants: It is out of service 10x times as much as ours.

I: yeah

P: They even light stuff on fire and that kind of stuff. And rubbish and stuff. And uuhm again: You do not want to generalize, but it is certainly something I see. Do you get me?

I: Yeah that is what you notice?

P: Yeah and that something that you rather not have. That kind of mix I rather not have if we’ll have those kind of issues here. “

Faraaz (social tenant):

P: “What I see here is mostly, social housing. So if people have social housing, as in my neighbourhood. Many children are not proper. They are rude. Not a good upbringing.”

Faraaz is in his late fifties and sickness benefit and is very keen on volunteering and helping people out, however he is very disappointed in the behaviour of social tenants. Faraaz is very specific in his description of improper and rude behaviour. He even takes it further by connecting the problems to upbringing. Homeowners in comparison have a better way of educating and raising their children. According to Faraaz this shows in everyday behaviour such as talking too loudly and not taking the rubbish to the bin.

(31)

31

Opposed to this view are Handenur and her neighbour. They feel like many people have these prejudices from an outsider’s perspective. Handenur and her neighbour state that her employer was almost shocked to see how proper and nice the house looked,

especially in this particular neighbourhood.

Handenur (social tenant):

P: “Shall I tell you, good that we are speaking about this matter. When I had my daughter, my first, my employer came to visit me. He entered my house and he didn’t know wat to say. ‘’You live

so great, in such a neighbourhood’’ ‘’It looks beautiful’

P3: People think like we can’t furniture a house or something. That we live like farmers. But if you walk into our homes it’s just nice, tidy and decorated to my personal taste.”

Coming from outside most residents base their images on what they can see. There are indeed many residents who spoke of rubbish outside on the streets, mostly in front of the social dwellings. Marijn for example:

Marijn (homeowner):

P: “I think it is very striking how, uuh because in our street you have two uuh, places where you can bring you rubbish bags. Well at the social housing part 9 out of 10 times is just a mess. Whilst

homeowners are way more proper.”

This kind of visual trait is emphasised through many interviews. It’s a common

frustration among homeowners very much linked to social housing. ‘Lost’ rubbish bags, rubbish flying around in the wind, pavements with chewing gum and cigarette butts. Overall ‘messiness’ is ascribed to social housing and it’s tenants.

Migrant background and religion

As stated above the Kolenkit neighbourhood had a considerable shift in population in the 1980’s/1990’s. The Kolenkit was originally planned to be a social housing neighbourhood. Migration was the beginning of a new community in Amsterdam. Working class

households were housed in inner city social housing. Processes of suburbanisation saw the first residents of the kolenkit and their children move. And residents with migrant background moved in to these social housing dwellings. This is mostly seen in the interviews were migrant background of social tenants is emphasized throughout. As

(32)

32

expected labels of Muslim, Moroccan and Turkish are very much jumbled together. As the following quote shows:

Edith (social tenant):

P: “I see it very diverse. Mostly they are, and that is something you cannot easily ignore, mostly Muslim, but I have met many families who aren’t.

[…]

P: I think mostly Moroccan background. But there are also people with Surinamese background, or Turkish, or Antillean you see as well.”

Edith firstly focusses on Muslims as the major group but later switches to several background based on migration background. In the third section of this chapter the difference in images of migrant background between homeowners and social tenants are explained.

Handenur and neighbours give a religious argument for not being able to be a homeowner. This provides an interesting side note in this research. For part of the residents who follow Islam accordingly to Handenur, buying a house is not only a financial issue, but a religious issue as well:

Handenur (social tenant): I: “Is buying a home possible for you?

P2: For us religious wise it’s not doable. With interest.

I: Ahh interest because of religious reasons, you cannot take on a loan? P: You can have a loan, but it’s because of the interest

P3: it’s quite a difficult subject to uuuhm, to explain it’s quite hard. You just know you cannot do it. P: It comes down to that yeah. ”

Handenur was the only respondent who had this particular perspective. But indeed this suggest that part of the Muslim community is bound to rental housing. With a religious interpretation similar to that of Handenur and her neighbours there could be more with the same view on this matter. Owning a home is not even an option in this case. In a

(33)

33

society where the emphasis on homeownership is increasing, this might be experienced as conflicting.

In sum many images of social tenants are expressed in the interviews. Accordingly to the literature images of lower income and migrant background became evident. What is not found is an association with vulnerable groups. Furthermore emphasis on behaviour of tenants is found, something not described in the literature chapter and therefore an unexpected outcome.

5.2 How do residents of the Kolenkit evaluate social housing in their neighbourhood?

The following section will focus on how residents evaluate social housing in the context of their changing neighbourhood. The first part is aimed towards the experience of the changing neighbourhood. The second section is aimed towards the connection of social housing and the changing neighbourhood.

5.2: a. How do residents of the Kolenkit experience the changing neighbourhood?

First and foremost change in the neighbourhood is evident to all participants. Many are even active member of community with sometimes official position at a local initiative. Annelies for example. She speaks of her involvement in neighbourhood volunteering as followed:

Annelies (homeowner):

“I would like to do more, but it is quite difficult here. In Amstelveen [previous neighbourhood] I could do more than I can hear. So uhm what I do here from a social perspective is a, a small field,

that was a weeds field of 50m2 and I have asked the municipality if I could create a, uuhm, if I could create a garden together with neighbours. Well that was possible. So I do this with a couple

of people. [….]

We also clean up the rubbish in the garden and sometimes I make some small talk with neighbours. Sometimes I have very ‘light’ and fun conversations, but I also know someone with very heavy issues and if he sees me… well… than he comes outside, and I have conversations with him and it just happens on the streets and I think that is quite special and very great that you can

have such a double function as a volunteer. […]

(34)

34

And the third thing I do is the Rubbish-container-adoptant. Because I heard a lot of people complain about rubbish on the street, at the containers as well. And I like to turn complaints into

an action.”

Annelies’ involvement is really focussed on willingness to change something in the neighbourhood and make it better. She is very proactive in initiating projects and is very aware of her role in the community. Furthermore she points out that there are indeed people complaining about rubbish, this is in accordance with the above stated images. However she connects her view on things to be improved with actually improving it. Finally she expresses the difficulty to engage and connect, even though Annelies does participate in the community she feels like this could and should be more. Hetty has a very outspoken opinion on the neighbourhood as well, especially regarding participation. She has a project running for the past three years now where extracting subsidies has been quite the challenge. She explains this as the following:

Hetty (homeowner):

P: “Halfway I kinda stopped the project because I felt, uhmm how can I put this politely, I absolutely disagreed with the policy in this neighbourhood. I really hit a wall there and every time

it took away my own drive in everything I did here. So I slowly pulled out of it, I was chair of the community platform and organised many things. At one point I stopped, the project I am doing now is my own, without to many people getting involved. I need to butter them up once a year so I

can continue for another year [sighs] and then it’s fine. I: For uuhm

P: For the subsidies yeah. I need to defend myself everytime, because we are not part of the targetgroup.

I: Not a target group? According to the municipality or?

P: No no according to the social workers. Because we are white and rich and are homeowners and we do not wear a headscarf. We are not a target group. I say we live here as well. I have elderly who are living on benefits. They have their own home but they lost their job in the economic crisis.

And they are in big trouble: MORE as some people in social housing, with their rent benefits and extra’s.

[…]

P: So I did everything I could to involve different background and get them at our table. For example with a Moroccan girl divorced mother with two kids, well she was here 2 or 3 times and

after that she didn’t show up anymore. I asked her why! Well her sister and aunt didn’t like it . Well then [sighs]: I rest my case. There was nothing more I could do.”

“People are happy here” : perceptions of social housing in the Kolenkit neighbourhood